Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2014

Measurement equivalence using a mixed-mode approach to administer health-related quality of life instruments

Auteurs: Jeanette M. Broering, Alan Paciorek, Peter R. Carroll, Leslie S. Wilson, Mark S. Litwin, Christine Miaskowski

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of mode, order of administration, and the interaction of mode and order on health-related quality of life scales when self-administered by mixed mode (paper-mode and web-mode) for measurement equivalence.

Methods

Health-related quality of life data was analyzed from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI). A randomized crossover design assigned participants to two groups with a preferred 2–5-day washout period. Cognitive debriefing evaluated participants’ mode preference.

Results

Of the 245 men enrolled, 85 % completed both modes. The majority were White (97 %), college educated (66 %), reported an annual income >$75,000 (46 %), and a median age of 69 years. Intraclass correlation coefficients were high for each item on both instruments (r = .54–.97). Exact percentage agreement for yes/no items was high (≥.88). For the SF-36, significant differences were observed for order of administration (physical component and physical function scores) and for the interaction between mode and order (mental component, role emotional, social function, vitality, and mental health scores). For the UCLA-PCI, the largest difference was 12.8 points lower for sexual bother for order of administration by web-mode first (p = .03). Seventy percent preferred the web-mode, 21 % had no preference, and 9 % preferred the paper-mode.

Conclusion

Web-mode and paper-mode administrations of the SF-36 and UCLA-PCI are equivalent in men with prostate cancer, implying that mixed-mode survey administration is warranted.

vorige artikel Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data

volgende artikel Use of factor analysis models to evaluate measurement invariance property of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)

Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x.PubMedCrossRef

Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.PubMedCrossRef

deLeeuw, E., Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2008). Mixed-mode surveys: When and why. In E. deLeeuw, J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 299–316). New York: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group.

deLeeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(2), 233–255.

Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.PubMedCrossRef

Arpinelli, F., & Bamfi, F. (2006). The FDA guidance for industry on PROs: The point of view of a pharmaceutical company. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 85. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-85.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

FDA. (2006). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. (pp. i–32). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.

Zickuhr, K. (2010). Generations 2010. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Generations_and_Tech10.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2012.

Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2012.

10.

Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007). Noncoverage and nonresponse in an internet survey. Social Science Research, 36, 131–148.CrossRef

11.

Abernethy, A. P., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Wheeler, J. L., Patwardhan, M., Shaw, H., Lyerly, H. K., et al. (2008). Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-reported data. Health Services Research, 43(6), 1975–1991. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00887.x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

12.

Dupont, A., Wheeler, J., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Coan, A., Zafar, S. Y., Hood, L., et al. (2009). Use of tablet personal computers for sensitive patient-reported information. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 7(3), 91–97.PubMed

13.

Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMed

14.

Basch, E., Artz, D., Iasonos, A., Speakman, J., Shannon, K., Lin, K., et al. (2007). Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(3), 264–268. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2177.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

15.

Farnell, D. J., Routledge, J., Hannon, R., Logue, J. P., Cowan, R. A., Wylie, J. P., et al. (2010). Efficacy of data capture for patient-reported toxicity following radiotherapy for prostate or cervical cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 46(3), 534–540. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2009.11.017.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Dillman, A., Gertseva, A., & Mahon-Haft, T. (2005). Achieving usability in establishment surveys through the application of visual design principles. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(2), 183–214.

17.

Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

18.

Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2007). Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5 Suppl), S90–S96. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.03.008.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 18(2), 257–273.

20.

Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (1999). The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 315–321.CrossRef

21.

Tseng, H. M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 89(Pt 4), 599–610.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Urologic Diseases in America (2012). In Litwin MS, Saigal CS, & et.al. (Eds.), Chapter 3 Prostate Cancer, Tables 3–10 & 3–11 (Vol., pp. 73–96, NIH Publication No. 12-7865 Vol. June 4, 2012). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

23.

Siegel, R., Naishadham, D., & Jemal, A. (2012). Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(1), 10–29. doi:10.3322/caac.20138.

24.

Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C., & Snyder, C. (2005). Introduction to outcomes assessment in cancer. In J. Lipscomb, C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcome assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 1–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Lipscomb, J., Snyder, C., & Gotay, C. (2007). Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the medical outcomes trust framework. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 143–164. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9116-x.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2(3), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef

27.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRef

28.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (1988). The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 26(7), 724–735.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2004). SF-36 ^® health survey: Manual & interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

31.

Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., & Brook, R. H. (1998). The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Medical Care, 36(7), 1002–1012.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., Leach, G. E., et al. (1995). Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(2), 129–135.CrossRef

34.

Lubeck, D. P., Litwin, M. S., Henning, J. M., Stier, D. M., Mazonson, P., Fisk, R., et al. (1996). The CaPSURE database: A methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. Urology, 48(5), 773–777.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Rosner, B. (2006). The cross-over design. In Fundamentals of biostatistics, (6th Ed., pp. 699–707). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

36.

Connare, V. (1996). Trebuchet MS. http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/family.aspx?FID=2. Accessed March 11, 2013.

37.

Ware, J. E, Jr, & Kosinski, M. (2001). SF-36 ^® physical and mental health summary scales: A manual for users of version 1.0 (2nd ed.). Lincoln: RI QualityMetric Incorporated.

38.

Rosner, B. (2006). The intraclass correlation coefficient. In Fundamentals of biostatistics (6th ed., pp. 613–617). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

39.

Rosner, B. (2006). The paired t test. In Fundamentals of biostatistics (6th Ed., pp. 298–302). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

40.

Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127–137.PubMed

41.

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

42.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

43.

D’Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Schultz, D., Blank, K., Broderick, G. A., et al. (1998). Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(11), 969–974.CrossRef

44.

Cohen, J. (1988). Calculation of effect size. In 2nd (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 24–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

45.

Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 515–523. doi:10.1586/14737167.4.5.515.CrossRef

46.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.PubMed

47.

Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

48.

Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0085-y.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 15–22.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11(1), 19–26.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Measurement equivalence using a mixed-mode approach to administer health-related quality of life instruments
Auteurs: Jeanette M. Broering
Alan Paciorek
Peter R. Carroll
Leslie S. Wilson
Mark S. Litwin
Christine Miaskowski
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0493-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2014

Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors

Use of factor analysis models to evaluate measurement invariance property of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)

Quality of life as a predictor of overall survival after breast cancer treatment

The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal

Validation of the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module for the assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with bone metastases

Assessment of children’s own health status using visual analogue scale and descriptive system of the EQ-5D-Y: linkage between two systems